The appeal is allowed in respect of both Decision Notice FS50347960 and Decision Notice FS50361229. There shall be substituted for each Decision Notice a decision notice directing the Common Council of the City of London to either confirm or deny whether it held the requested information at the time of the request and, if it did hold it, either disclose it or issue an appropriate refusal notice explaining why it says that the requested information was not disclosable at the time the request was made.

I am a bit behind in Mr. Thackerey's FOIA request. What is it we now know, and what is the document 35 which is still denied?

We don't actually know anything new yet, but the Information Tribunal has ordered the City of London to respond to

this query about Alderman Luder and his meetings with Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc., which immediately preceded and may have caused the granting of charitable relief from business rates (i.e. 80% tax relief) to Scientology's London HQ.

both of which FOIA queries the City of London had refused to respond to, deeming them to be vexatious. This judgement determines that CoL was wrong to deem them vexatious, because (para 26)

The dogged pursuit of an investigation should not lightly be characterised as an obsessive campaign of harassment. It is inevitable that, in some circumstances, information disclosed in response to one request will generate a further request, designed to pursue a particular aspect of the matter in which the requester in interested. We think that the Gifts and Hospitality Chain is an example. More importantly, we think that the Alderman Luder Chain is a further example. We would not like to see section 14 being used to prevent a requester, who has submitted a general request, then narrowing the focus of a second request in order to pursue a particular line of enquiry suggested by the disclosure made under the first request.

The cases which were lost related to

the identities of individuals who, as Scientology "Volunteer Ministers", were falsely purporting to perform charitable works (while in fact being engaged in Scientology recruitment),

and the identities of Scientology representatives redacted from information supplied by scientology to the City of London in support of Scientology's application for tax relief.

in both of which cases the Information Tribunal determined that the individual's right to privacy was more important that the public interest in the release of that particular information.

There's an obvious reason for COSRECI wanting details of their application kept secret. The main one being that they claimed they had not applied for rates relief on their headquarters previously when in fact they had and were turned down in 1999.

The scientologists, it now emerges, secured relief of £281,344 on the full rates of £351,680 on their London base - a discount of 80 per cent.The City of London Corporation said the group had been entitled to the huge reduction because it carried out "charitable works". A member of the corporation, Alderman Ian Luder, a partner with leading City accounting and consultancy firm Grant Thornton, spoke at the building's grand opening of the "effective" help scientology provided for drug users.

A "partner" for Grant Thornton, no less, and there appears to be a connection:

Thank you Roland, I knew that he spoke at the building's opening but hadn't spotted the Grant Thornton connection.

In one of his emails reporting back to CoL, Ian Luder refers to the bundle of pamphlets that he's been given by Scientology as their 'propaganda', so he's obviously not drinking the kool-aid. But it does seem as though he might have been doing a favour for one of his firm's clients.

Thank you Roland, I knew that he spoke at the building's opening but hadn't spotted the Grant Thornton connection.

In one of his emails reporting back to CoL, Ian Luder refers to the bundle of pamphlets that he's been given by Scientology as their 'propaganda', so he's obviously not drinking the kool-aid. But it does seem as though he might have been doing a favour for one of his firm's clients.

The reason he was denied a knighthood due to supporting the idea of banker's bonuses does not wash with me. As Lord Major it was his job for that year to promote the trade of the City of London which is mostly financial services so he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. To deny him his knighthood on the basis that he was supporting banker's bonuses is therefore a nonsense. It would make more sense if it were due to something else.

Since he was an expert in tax savings then perhaps some people could dig around in that area.

Mr Luder's private life provoked controversy when he became Lord Mayor over a bizarre feud involving a neighbour's cat.

Police were called after he and third wife Lin fell out with neighbours Tony and Debbie Pay.

The Luders were accused of locking the Pays' cat, called 'Fat Cat', in their home and rejecting pleas to stop feeding the animal. The pet later died. Mrs Luder, who works for a US law firm in the City, sought to ban the Pays from approaching her front door.

Mr Luder resigned as a Labour councillor in Bedford in 1999 after leaving his second wife Liz, a fellow Labour councillor and former mayor of Bedford, for Lin, his mistress and 13 years his junior.

Councillors voted against making him an honorary alderman of Bedford. His former wife Liz said the vote was influenced by her former husband's 'sudden desertion' of his family and 'all-too-public behaviour surrounding that event'.

Reading more then it seems he was dropped from the knighthood list for some quite ordinary reasons:

In one of his emails reporting back to CoL, Ian Luder refers to the bundle of pamphlets that he's been given by Scientology as their 'propaganda', so he's obviously not drinking the kool-aid.

The term "propaganda" has acquired negative connotations over time. However it can simply mean, "promotional materials" or "pamphlets" (think "promote and propagate").

If there is nothing else within the email indicating that Mr. Luder was unimpressed with the Scientology publications, I would assume he was using "propaganda" in its older, less pejorative, and more formal sense.

The term "propaganda" has acquired negative connotations over time. However it can simply mean, "marketing materials" or "pamphlets."

If there is nothing else within the email indicating that Mr. Luder was unimpressed with the Scientology publications, I would assume he was using "propaganda" in its older, less pejorative, and more formal sense.

My impression of the tone of the email was that he was unimpressed with Scientology.

It'll also be interesting to see what the actual information was that they were so reluctant to reveal.

It may be nothing. They just got fed up with the requests.

Which brings me to the next point. That is it is becoming clear that these scumbags have made their decision and they are sticking to it no matter what and thumbing their noses at any and all who question it. So I feel we have to bring this to its logical conclusion. If these scumbags think it is right to force us to give money to this cult so that they can brainwash people and force abortions on their slave followers and that these scumbags have considered that this is right and just..... and given we have no power to change this..... then the only thing left for us to do is to limit the impact this will have on members of the public by diverting the cults recruitment efforts right into their laps. If the children and grandchildren of these honourable council members could be recruited into the cult then the damage would be done there and the obortions performed on their own children or grandchildren. I think this is the only option left to us to limit the harm to society.

If you buy a Dianetics book, for example. you can fill in a form and send it in. I suggest that people make use of this system.

As I mentioned to you at lunchtime, I met with three representatives of the above Church, and their solicitor, this afternoon in Guildhall. They had requested the meeting with me, as the Alderman for the Ward in which the building is located, and I agreed to meet them on that basis, and on the understanding that having discussed their rating position with them, I would be unable to Chair a meeting of the Finance Committee at which any application which they might make for discretionary relief, might be considered. They readily accepted that I could not act in both capacities.

For the sake of good order, I would be grateful if Carla could place a copy of this email on her files, and Louise on the TCs files of interests being declared, the latter of course only in the event that an application is received.

This email summarises the position as explained to me, and the advice which I gave:

Luder outlines 3 methods for determining how the CoS London property might be taxed:

A) Change of use from "offices" to "place of worship"
B) May still qualify for mandatory relief without a favorable Charities Commission ruling
C) Discretionary relief

I was showered with propaganda leaflets and DVDs which I have given into the custody of [REDACTED], since they may be of import in determine [sic] whether the Church should qualify under B), or whether Members [of the city Finance Committee] would wish to support an application under C.

The meeting was cordial and lasted one hour.

So Luder met with the Scientologists and now finds himself in the somewhat awkward position of having to convey their intentions to the City of London. Moreover, he's about to pass along a box of colorful pap that no one will want to read. I think anyone in his position would want to say, "Hey don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger."

Emails detailing phone call conversations can hold confidential information that public bodies should not disclose

A local authority in London was "justified" in not disclosing an email that recorded the "substance" of a telephone conversation between a staff member and a third party because it would have been a breach of confidence to do so, an Information Rights Tribunal has ruled.22 May 2012

The Tribunal rejected the view of a William Thackeray who had argued that the Common Council of the City of London should have to disclose the information, which relates to the authority's dealings with organisations linked with the Church of Scientology.

Thackeray had claimed that the Information Commissioner had been wrong to allow the authority to rely on a particular section of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to refuse his request for the email. The email had been created by the Common Council's staff member and was therefore subject to disclosure, he had argued.

"We have considered the contents of the document and the circumstances in which, it says on its face, the information was obtained," the Tribunal said in its ruling (5-page / 41KB PDF). "We are satisfied, on that basis, that the Information Commissioner’s analysis was correct and that a breach of confidence claim could be sustained against the Authority if it had disclosed it other than under the [FOI Act]."

"We reject the argument by Mr Thackeray that the exemption was not engaged because [the email] was created by the Authority. The document may have been created by an employee of the Authority but the information contained in it had certainly been obtained from a third party, being the person to whom the writer of the document had spoken," it said.

Under FOI laws individuals have a general 'right to know', which entitles them to be provided with information held by Government departments and public bodies. However, those bodies can legitimately withhold information requested in some circumstances.

One absolute exemption under the Act allows bodies to refuse to disclose information they hold when it is "obtained ... from any other person" and "disclosure to the public ... would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person."

In agreeing with the Information Commissioner's findings the Tribunal held that the information sought by Thackeray had satisfied criteria for breach of confidence. Previous case law in England and Wales has established a three stage test for determining whether a breach of confidence has occurred.

Under the test the "information in question" must first have the "necessary quality of confidence" to obtain protection. It also must have been "passed by the confider in circumstances that gave rise to an obligation of confidence". Finally, any "unauthorised use or disclosure" by the person taken into confidence must also have to lead to "detriment" suffered by the confider.

"The Information Commissioner decided that the information recorded in document had been obtained by the third party who had participated in the recorded conversation and that it included information having the necessary quality of confidence to satisfy the first part of the ... test," the Tribunal's ruling said. "He also concluded that the information had been confided to the Authority in circumstances that gave rise to an obligation of confidence and that its disclosure would lead detriment for the confider."

I think some of the problems facing us and CoL is that there seems to be neither procedure, nor any criteria, for revoking tax reduction and/or charitable status. Perhaps a better plan of action would be to request the appropriate CoL procedure for revoking the tax relief?

Bearing in mind that if they don't grant it then they'll get sued to shit by Scientology (which I suspect is the threat, explicitly or implicitly) and even if they win they'll lose non-recoverable costs, versus if they do grant it then it costs them nothing (because central government funds make up the difference), I think there's zero to nothing chance of this decision changing, in the absence of external pressure or a change in circumstances.

1. Name of any:
a) body to which you are appointed or nominated by the authority;

NIL

b) body exercising functions of a public nature;

NIL

c) body directed to charitable purposes;

Company/BodyPosition held
Worshipful Company of Coopers Liveryman and Court Assistant
Royal Society of St George (CofL branch)
Northants County Cricket Club Member
The Lords Taverners Member
Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers Liveryman and Court Assistant
I have various shareholdings, which make me a member of the companies involved, but none exceed the limits set out in question 5.
Order of St John Member
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Member
Riseley Historical Society
The Youth Hostels Association Member
Freemasons Grand Charity
Bedford Historical Records Society Member
City Livery Club Member
Castle Baynard Ward Club Member
Diabetes UK Member
Guild of Arts Scholars, Dealers and Collectors Honorary Freeman
Coleman Street Ward Club Member
The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Member
Castle Baynard Educational Foundation Trustee
Farringdon Ward Club Member
City Pickwick Club Member
National Trust for Scotland Member
The Lords Taveners
The Honourable The Irish Society Governor
Charity of Alderman Samuel Wilson Trustee
The Woodland Trust Member
Lord Mayor's Appeal Director
Beford Rugby Union Football Club Member

4. Name of any person or body, other than the relevant authority, who has made a payment to you in respect of your election or any expenses incurred by you carrying out your duties;

None re Election Expenses
NILBENEFICIAL INTERESTS

5. Name of any person or body who has a place of business or land in the authority's area, and inwhom you have a beneficial interest in a class of securites of that person or body that exceeds the nominal value of £25,000 or one hundreth of the total issued share capital (whichever is the lower);

Hydro Hotel (Eastbourne) PlcCONTRACTS

6. Description of any contract for goods, services or works made between the authority and you or a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are remunerated as a director or a person or body as described in (5) above.

NILDECLARATION OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY

7. Name of the person or body from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25.

Alderman Ian Luder BSc (Econ)
NB. Alderman Luder served as Lord Mayor in 2008/09 and as Sheriff in 2007/08.
In relation to the mayor or chair of an authority, Standards for England takes the view that where hospitality is extended to the office holder for the time being rather than the individual, there is no requirement under the Code of Conduct to register the hospitality and has confirmed that this principle extends to the City's ceremonial office holders (i.e.. The Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and Chief Commoner).
A Schedule of declarations of receipts of gifts can be found at Appendix A
A Schedule of declarations of receipts of hospitality can be found at Appendix BLAND AND PROPERTY

8. Address, or description, of any land in which you have a beneficial interest in the area of the authority;

25 Andrewes House, Barbican, London EC2Y 8AX

9. Address, or description, of any land where the landlord is the authority and you are, or a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are remunerated as a director, or a person or body of the description specified in (5) above, is the tenant;

NIL

10. Address of any land in the authority's area in which you have a licence to occupy for 28 days or longer;

Gift ReceivedDonorDate Received
2 Ties The Sheriffs' Society 02/10/2007
2 Commemorative plain glass tumblers and a small decanter W.Co. of Hackney Carriage Drivers 05/10/2007
A Pair of White Leather Gloves W.Co. of Glovers 09/10/2007
Visitors Book Castle Baynard Ward Club 10/11/2007
Engraved early 20th Century Ink Well and Silver Stand Royal Society of St. George, City of London Branch 10/11/2007
Double-Sided Silver Photograph Frame The City Livery Club 10/11/2007
Engraved early 20th Century Silver Salver The Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers 10/11/2007